7 ms·

Do you believe that the administration is doing so much worse of a job than the previous ones? I suspect it has more to do with 20 years of backdoor deals sudde

Do you believe that the administration is doing so much worse of a job than the previous ones? I suspect it has more to do with 20 years of backdoor deals suddenly meaning diddly because they couldn't predict the outcome this time. 20 years of predictable status-quo presidency will set up some deep ties, which should be obviously unhealthy for a nation that believes they elected a leader and not a rent-a-puppy. Having agencies which are actively sabotaging the majority elected party is obviously antidemocratic. The agencies ultimately carry out the work of the government, so if elected representatives don't hold authority over the agencies, you get an autocracy.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
The president in the US has always been a position that is opposed by bureaucracy, not able to simply dictate their will on non-partisan agencies. I think that's a good thing: they can lead and influence the course of the nation on behalf of the people, but can't whip it around and effectively wield it outside of those agencies' mandates -- which are themselves controlled by elected representatives (the Congress). What Trump is discovering is that his job is to manage agencies who are created by the Congress and ultimately must live up to the mandate imposed by the Congress, and their oaths to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies, such as would-be dictators (eg Trump). The oath that officers take mandates that they oppose Trump, and his undermining of the separate branches of government (and separation of powers), role of media, etc. The system is working, and we should appreciate the dedication of the people making it work -- by checking the president's autonomous power. Maybe Trump's supporters wanted a dictator, but they shouldn't be surprised that people who love America and spend their lives serving it won't simply roll over and let that happen.
- microcolonel 10y ago
  >Maybe Trump's supporters wanted a dictator, but they shouldn't be surprised that people who love America and spend their lives serving it won't simply roll over and let that happen. Treason is the alternative?
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    It's not treason to follow your oath of office, to defend the Constitution, nor is it treason to follow the mandate the Congress created for your agency. It is treason to, as president, violate your oath of office to follow and protect the Constitution.
    - microcolonel 10y ago
      Has the president done something unconstitutional, or do you just want him to?
      - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
        In order of seriousness: He seems to have colluded with a foreign state to undermine the integrity of our elections and political process. He likely made financial arrangements as part of that process. He has attacked the independence and authority of the judicial branch, which enforces constitutional restraint on our president. He has attacked the media, which (while not a government agency) forms a basis for democratic society. Together, these are a systemic assault on the American system, which while not ideal, is not better served by a despot. It should be clear something is amiss when renowned senators like John McCain are pointing out Trump is acting the way despots do.
        dagw 10y ago
        Other than first one, for which there is no evidence, non of those things are against the constitution.
        nostrademons 10y ago
        There seems to be a bit of a double-standard here. It's true that by a strict reading of the constitution, it is not unconstitutional for the president to "attack" the independence and authority of the judicial branch, only to deny them the powers enumerated in the Constitution. And similarly, it's not unconstitutional to "attack" the media, only for Congress to pass a law abridging their freedom to publish. But by the same strict reading of the Constitution, it is also not treason for intelligence officers to leak information to the press. Treason is narrowly defined within the Constitution as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." If seeking to discredit the media or control its access to information is just all in the game, then seeking to deliver that information to media is also just all in the game. I think much of the article's point was that there are established norms & institutions by which the President usually interacts with the rest of the government. If the President ignores them, then it's highly likely that other power centers will also say "Well, if they're going to come after me with all the resources available to them, I'm going to go after them with all the resources available to me." And the end result of that is often multiple competing power centers in open warfare with each other, much like what happened in Syria. That would be bad for everyone in America (and a good many people outside of it), and so we should be wary of all parties that seek to ignore the norms of peaceful democratic society.
- hueving 10y ago
  >The system is working, and we should appreciate the dedication of the people making it work -- by checking the president's autonomous power. No, the system was absolutely not designed for departments under the president's control to leak information and participate in insubordination. The checks and balances are between the 3 branches of government, not within a single branch. It's akin to military personnel not liking a decision their general made and leaking the plan to force it to change.
  - slavik81 10y ago
    One of the quiet principles of leadership they apply in the military is: only give an order if your men will follow it. The reality is that leaders only really have power due to their followers. A few dissenters you can deal with, but if most of your followers are deeply opposed to your orders, then the limitations of your power will be exposed.
  - codeonfire 10y ago
    The intelligence agencies are not under "the presidents control". They are authorized and funded by congress. They exist to provide intelligence to various congressional committees like the senate intelligence committee.
    - wang_li 10y ago
      All of the government is funded by congress. But that doesn't change the fact that the defense agencies, the civil service, the intelligence agencies, etc. are all executive branch departments and are under the control of the president. The way the government and civil service are supposed to work is that the country expresses its wishes via elections and the representatives elected set the policy and create laws. The civil service's purposes is to enact those policies and laws. What they don't get to do is set their own policy or create their own laws (yes, they do get to create some regulations but only within the scope outlined by congress.)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

The president in the US has always been a position that is opposed by bureaucracy, not able to simply dictate their will on non-partisan agencies. I think that's a good thing: they can lead and influence the course of the nation on behalf of the people, but can't whip it around and effectively wield it outside of those agencies' mandates -- which are themselves controlled by elected representatives (the Congress). What Trump is discovering is that his job is to manage agencies who are created by the Congress and ultimately must live up to the mandate imposed by the Congress, and their oaths to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies, such as would-be dictators (eg Trump). The oath that officers take mandates that they oppose Trump, and his undermining of the separate branches of government (and separation of powers), role of media, etc. The system is working, and we should appreciate the dedication of the people making it work -- by checking the president's autonomous power. Maybe Trump's supporters wanted a dictator, but they shouldn't be surprised that people who love America and spend their lives serving it won't simply roll over and let that happen.

microcolonel 10y ago
>Maybe Trump's supporters wanted a dictator, but they shouldn't be surprised that people who love America and spend their lives serving it won't simply roll over and let that happen. Treason is the alternative?
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  It's not treason to follow your oath of office, to defend the Constitution, nor is it treason to follow the mandate the Congress created for your agency. It is treason to, as president, violate your oath of office to follow and protect the Constitution.
  - microcolonel 10y ago
    Has the president done something unconstitutional, or do you just want him to?
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      In order of seriousness: He seems to have colluded with a foreign state to undermine the integrity of our elections and political process. He likely made financial arrangements as part of that process. He has attacked the independence and authority of the judicial branch, which enforces constitutional restraint on our president. He has attacked the media, which (while not a government agency) forms a basis for democratic society. Together, these are a systemic assault on the American system, which while not ideal, is not better served by a despot. It should be clear something is amiss when renowned senators like John McCain are pointing out Trump is acting the way despots do.
      - dagw 10y ago
        Other than first one, for which there is no evidence, non of those things are against the constitution.
        nostrademons 10y ago
        There seems to be a bit of a double-standard here. It's true that by a strict reading of the constitution, it is not unconstitutional for the president to "attack" the independence and authority of the judicial branch, only to deny them the powers enumerated in the Constitution. And similarly, it's not unconstitutional to "attack" the media, only for Congress to pass a law abridging their freedom to publish. But by the same strict reading of the Constitution, it is also not treason for intelligence officers to leak information to the press. Treason is narrowly defined within the Constitution as "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." If seeking to discredit the media or control its access to information is just all in the game, then seeking to deliver that information to media is also just all in the game. I think much of the article's point was that there are established norms & institutions by which the President usually interacts with the rest of the government. If the President ignores them, then it's highly likely that other power centers will also say "Well, if they're going to come after me with all the resources available to them, I'm going to go after them with all the resources available to me." And the end result of that is often multiple competing power centers in open warfare with each other, much like what happened in Syria. That would be bad for everyone in America (and a good many people outside of it), and so we should be wary of all parties that seek to ignore the norms of peaceful democratic society.
hueving 10y ago
>The system is working, and we should appreciate the dedication of the people making it work -- by checking the president's autonomous power. No, the system was absolutely not designed for departments under the president's control to leak information and participate in insubordination. The checks and balances are between the 3 branches of government, not within a single branch. It's akin to military personnel not liking a decision their general made and leaking the plan to force it to change.
- slavik81 10y ago
  One of the quiet principles of leadership they apply in the military is: only give an order if your men will follow it. The reality is that leaders only really have power due to their followers. A few dissenters you can deal with, but if most of your followers are deeply opposed to your orders, then the limitations of your power will be exposed.
- codeonfire 10y ago
  The intelligence agencies are not under "the presidents control". They are authorized and funded by congress. They exist to provide intelligence to various congressional committees like the senate intelligence committee.
  - wang_li 10y ago
    All of the government is funded by congress. But that doesn't change the fact that the defense agencies, the civil service, the intelligence agencies, etc. are all executive branch departments and are under the control of the president. The way the government and civil service are supposed to work is that the country expresses its wishes via elections and the representatives elected set the policy and create laws. The civil service's purposes is to enact those policies and laws. What they don't get to do is set their own policy or create their own laws (yes, they do get to create some regulations but only within the scope outlined by congress.)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]